How possible would this be...

Imagine an alliance that spanned the entire server which held control of each of the 5 metropolises that can exist at a given time on a given server. Imagine also they coordinate internally to develop at least 1 of each node type (scientific, militaristic, economic, religious etc). The purpose being to bring the maximum benefit to the server as a whole.

Hypothetically speaking, from what I can understand in terms of the game/node mechanics, would this be possible? And if so, without a doubt it would be a pretty titanic effort to maintain but just thought it would be an interesting take.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

winner909098

jubilum wrote: »

I mean, this may be the case, but I'm not seeing a down side to it.

They have a full servers population playing a way they are all happy with.

oh i have no problem with it at all I've even consider something similar to get around IS insistence of open world/non-consensual pvp. I have actually gone as far as putting a plan in writing on how this would work. It would take all the like minded players and guilds to come together and commit to such a utopia but it is possible.[/quote]

I doubt that 30,000 people will agree with anything.

Leiloni

The only time I saw people get together in large numbers like that for long periods of time was in Aion back on Elyos Israphel in the first few years. We had a faction wide Alliance lead by this one guy, but it only worked for two reasons: 1) He was the top ranking player in the PvP ranking system consistently, and thus had massive power in sieges from the transform it gave him, not to mention top rank makes people listen to you, and 2) we won with elaborately organized sieges that he led against the Asmos consistently.

So that wasn't really an alliance based on guilds/player agreeing to be nice to each other, as much as it was a militaristic style alliance entirely built on power earned. Because to be honest everybody hated him with a passion, but we let him lead us for I think years.

I don't think a "Let's be friendly and take over the world" thing is going to work, here. People are going to argue either between or within guilds and it'll fall apart from normal drama.

HazardNumberSeven

I look forward to dismantling any server-wide utopia that manifests on my server.

HazardNumberSeven

If no one fights, nodes will not be able to advance and goodluck convincing no one to ever attack a caravan, because people are greedy.

Not to mention all the betrayal mechanics that are likely to be put into the game, because the devs want to support intrigue and combat zerginess.

Dimitraeos

While I already acknowledged the difficulty and low likelihood of this happening, I think what some people contrary to the idea are missing is (and again, unless i'm misunderstanding the game mechanics) the members within this alliance would receive the benefit of the whole collective "rotating" nodes to allow for shared access to the various content tied to other nodes/node types.

If an alliance like this is set up and democratic decision making is properly implemented so that all of the alliances members can impart their will onto the process, I don't see why this couldn't work.

Especially given the fact that external antagonists like this will exist, hence driving the need to more cohesion to maintain the project:

hazardnumberseven wrote: »

I look forward to dismantling any server-wide utopia that manifests on my server.

I think if anything, the biggest threat to this kind of collaboration is what I just quoted, external forces. (And thats why this game has so much fucking emergent gameplay potential

)

Child Item